Follow Us on Google
From Romanus Ugwu, Abuja
The Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) has complained bitterly to the leadership of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that political parties encountered unprecedented difficulties in conducting direct primaries for the offices of the president, governor, senator, members of the House of Representatives, and State House of Assembly.
The Council further noted that the conduct of the primary elections exposed significant legal, administrative, and operational challenges that deserve urgent national attention.
IPAC’s National Chairman, Yusuf Mamman Dantalle made the disclosure in his remarks at INEC’s quarterly consultative meeting with the leadership of the political parties held in Abuja.
Dantalle further complained that the experience of the primary exercise demonstrated that the removal of indirect primaries created considerable constraints for political parties.
He stressed that in many instances, political parties adopted the consensus option despite the existence of multiple aspirants who had duly purchased expression of interest and nomination forms, explaining that several aspirants were persuaded, and in some cases pressured, to withdraw from the contest after preferred candidates had already been identified by influential party stakeholders.
According to him; “The nomination of candidates by political parties for the 2027 general election officially concluded on Saturday, May 30, 2026, in accordance with the timetable and schedule of activities released by INEC.”
“However, the conduct of these primaries exposed significant legal, administrative, and operational challenges that deserve urgent national attention.
“Political parties encountered unprecedented difficulties in conducting primaries for the offices of president, governor, senator, members of the House of Representatives, and State House of Assembly.
“These challenges arose largely from the restrictive provisions of Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which limited parties to either consensus or direct primaries, effectively eliminating the option of indirect primaries.
“The experience of the just-concluded nomination exercise demonstrates that the removal of indirect primaries created considerable constraints for political parties. In many instances, parties adopted the consensus option despite the existence of multiple aspirants who had duly purchased expression of interest and nomination forms.
“Several aspirants were persuaded, and in some cases pressured, to withdraw from the contest after preferred candidates had already been identified by influential party stakeholders.
Other News
“While some aspirants accepted these arrangements in the interest of party unity, others challenged their exclusion, arguing that genuine consensus requires the voluntary agreement of all contestants.
“Consequently, several disputes have found their way to the courts, creating uncertainty and avoidable tension within the political system,” he lamented.
Dantalle further revealed that apart from the challenges of direct primaries, the political parties equally encountered financial and logistics hurdles, noting that the realities forced some parties to adopt extraordinary measures to avoid circumstances that could necessitate direct primaries.
“The enormous financial and logistical demands associated with direct primaries presented significant challenges, particularly for political parties that do not control governmental resources.
“Faced with these realities, some parties adopted extraordinary measures to avoid circumstances that could necessitate direct primaries. In some cases, nomination forms were not made widely available to prospective aspirants. In others, congress and primary election schedules were not publicly announced in a timely manner to minimise potential disputes.
“These developments constitute an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the current legal framework governing party primaries,” he noted.
He further claimed that another area of concern relates to the uncertainty generated by conflicting judicial pronouncements regarding INEC’s powers to regulate and fix timelines for party primaries and the resolution of disputes arising therefrom.
“While one court nullified aspects of the Commission’s timetable, another subsequently affirmed INEC’s authority in that regard. This situation has created confusion among political parties, candidates, and other stakeholders.
“Although the commission has appealed the earlier judgment, the existence of conflicting decisions on critical electoral matters undermines public confidence and introduces avoidable uncertainty into the democratic process.
“Similarly, political parties were required to submit updated membership registers, including National Identification Numbers (NIN), within a limited timeframe. While the objective of enhancing the credibility and accuracy of party membership records is commendable, the implementation process proved challenging.
“Many genuine party members were inadvertently excluded due to logistical constraints and the compressed timeline for compliance,” he said.
